Talk:Woody plant encroachment

Article title
I think this article should be at Bush encroachment with sections on Namibia and South Africa dealt with as sections. It is related to phenomenon in the veldt and is not a political one although there may be differences in how it is handled in the two different countries (is it?). Shyamal (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The title certainly has overtones of politics. The term "encroachment" is clearly negative (even pejorative), and while Google Scholar does reveal technical usage of the term, that does not guarantee its appropriateness or even correctness. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:CFORK with secondary succession?
,, : Further to the "Article title" thread, WPE implies that woody plants are somehow straying where they do not belong into pristine, virgin grassland which must be the right and proper thing for the landscape. Says who? The ecological succession in many ecozones is from bare ground to grass to mixed herbs and woody plants to forest, whether or not one subscribes to the idea of a climatic climax community. Worse, the WPE seems to overlap heavily with, if not to form an actual but loaded synonym of, secondary succession. There, woody plants (re-)invade a grassland created or maintained by human intervention, often by regular burning. Yet, the article doesn't even mention or link secondary succession, so we may well have a WP:CFORK here; if we don't, the article must at least discuss the relationship of the two concepts and separate them carefully, citing multiple reliable (review, not primary research) sources. This article is detailed and richly-cited, and looks as if it is carefully-written, but it seems to use many primary sources, and the elephant in the room is not even mentioned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Unreferenced section
Erikdactyl, thanks for reviewing the lead section of this article. Allow me to provide some feedback as one of the main editors of the article. The article went through a GA review process and as part of that process teh lead section was significantly expanded. On purpose the lead section does not have references, because all content and claims are reflected in detail in other sections. This is in line with guidelines, such as the one linked below. Do you think we must introduce some key referenes from the aticle body or can the lead section reamain without? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section#References_in_the_lead? Calidumpluviam (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Calidumpluviam My apologies, I hadn't noticed any other articles written without references in the lead section and thought not having references made verifying claims difficult, with the possibility of unverified claims being included in the lead. I now see this isn't the case with this article, I mistakenly didn't check the talk page before editing. Thank you for the detailed reply. I personally prefer references in the lead, but I understand why they aren't included in this article. Erikdactyl (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Erikdactyl I think you have a point and I have now added 4 key references/sources to the lead section. It makes a much better impression this way and also elevates the most important references. Many thanks for your feedback. I have removed the "unreferenced section" tag and look forward to similary contstructive feedback in the future. Calidumpluviam (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)